Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

If the near-field mix was introduced for DVD how is dynamic range not entirely different then a theatrical mix?

Because it has nothing to with dynamic range. There is only slight changes regarding the upper midrange energy, which was balanced for much larger auditoriums then the typical HT. THX's RE-Eq is aimed at that same issue. The mixer will also make sure that when bass management used there won't be any phase shifts. Other then that it's very much the same mix. If there is dynamic compression used like on the original Fellowship Of The Ring DVD it is usually because of some sort of intent by the filmmakers or the studio, but it is not wide spread at all and certainly the DVD format has no any such limitation to warrant it as a policy. The argument that guy makes that LD was marketed to video/audiophiles while makes since is just his opinion, and serves no real proof for why some DVD's sound different then it's LD counterparts.

But if one soundtrack is mixed in a very large theater with high db output and another is mixed in the near-field with smaller monitors how can there not be differences in the overall sonic presentation of the two mixes?

While I can appreciate that the person in the link might not know everything he has worked in the field of sound and post production.

I thought the digital tracks on LDs are lossless (LPCM)? Anyways, to my ears the LD LPCM tracks sound far better than DVD DD5.1 tracks. Of course it does not have the discrete surrounds, but there is no comparison in fidelity.

It is possible that different masters are used for LDs and DVDs - can anyone verify that? And if so, are the masters of a superior quality?

I still have my LD player because some of the movies haven't yet made it to Blu-Ray (such as Jurassic Park), and the DVD audio just don't cut it.

But if one soundtrack is mixed in a very large theater with high db output and another is mixed in the near-field with smaller monitors how can there not be differences in the overall sonic presentation of the two mixes?

While I can appreciate that the person in the link might not know everything he has worked in the field of sound and post production.

Right, I'm sure he is.
Both are mixed on the same equipment and in the same mixing stage, however the mixer knows what to change. I didn't say there is nothing different about them, but the difference is rather small and it isn't the dynamics as your poster boy alludes to.

I thought the digital tracks on LDs are lossless (LPCM)? Anyways, to my ears the LD LPCM tracks sound far better than DVD DD5.1 tracks. Of course it does not have the discrete surrounds, but there is no comparison in fidelity.

It is possible that different masters are used for LDs and DVDs - can anyone verify that? And if so, are the masters of a superior quality?

I still have my LD player because some of the movies haven't yet made it to Blu-Ray (such as Jurassic Park), and the DVD audio just don't cut it.

The LD's PCM track is only 2 ch, so if the original mix was MCH discrete, the LD's 2ch mix is a serious compromise to the original. This practice was a carryover from VHS which had the same matrixed 2ch mix in analog also lossless. The lossy DD and DTS on LD or DVD gave us far closer presentation of the original mix, like it or not.

As for different masters being used for DVD and LD is among many myths that surrounds the 12" disc's existence. Unless there is some kind of restoration takes place or specific intent from the studio, there is no reason to create a new master for audio.

I thought the digital tracks on LDs are lossless (LPCM)? Anyways, to my ears the LD LPCM tracks sound far better than DVD DD5.1 tracks. Of course it does not have the discrete surrounds, but there is no comparison in fidelity.

It is possible that different masters are used for LDs and DVDs - can anyone verify that? And if so, are the masters of a superior quality?

I still have my LD player because some of the movies haven't yet made it to Blu-Ray (such as Jurassic Park), and the DVD audio just don't cut it.

Same goes for Die Hard 1 (DTS) and Top Gun (AC3)... both of which have been now surpassed by their Blu-ray versions.

Another example is Heat.

I find that in almost every case, to my ears the LD audio has better fidelity than the corresponding DVD. It is not a subtle difference - if it is a movie that I am familiar with, then I can usually tell in a blind test after about 5 seconds of listening. Hun has confirmed that it is not the mix, so there is something inherently inferior about DVD audio, whether it is by design or in implementation. My experience has always been that the move from LD to DVD was not all positive. We got lower prices, better PQ, and better surround effects, but lost out in the audio fidelity department.

so there is something inherently inferior about DVD audio, whether it is by design or in implementation. My experience has always been that the move from LD to DVD was not all positive. We got lower prices, better PQ, and better surround effects, but lost out in the audio fidelity department.

There is nothing inherently worse or even different about DVD's sound capability if the same mix and encodings were used. What we have here is personal preference there is absolutely no technical reason for any substantial difference unless were talking about LD's 2.0PCM vs DVD's lossy MCH. BTW DVD's DTS and DD both has higher bitrates, bit depth, and sampling rates, then it is available on LD, mostly because the early stages of development for both codecs offered lower rates at the time they were used on LD.
Nonetheless DVD has the edge there, despite what some people seem to prefer.

Most DTS on DVD is 756/768 while its always 1411 on LD (doubt you'll miss the 4KHZ) though.

Your numbers are off a bit, but in any case you don't cite that DD on LD was always 384 kbps, while on DVD it is mostly 448kbps, yet some people still claim that LD sounds better with higher compression rate which is measurably have less flat FR bandwidth among other things. But let's look at the real DTS figures.

DTS till 1999 used 16 bit 44.1 khz at 1235 kbps on both CD and LD, with DVD the specks were revised to 20/24 bits to 48/96khz and 754/1509 kbps [consumed data rates]. The fact that most studio elected the to use the "half bit rate" on DVD, has nothing to do with LD's superiority, which is not true obviously, nor it is relevant to that claim.

I have never heard any of the lossy formats from LD - I never had the proper LD player or the special piece of equipment (modulator?) that is needed. However, without a doubt to my ears, the LD LPCM sounds better than DVD DD 5.1. But of course with matrixed surrounds instead of discrete. But I will take fidelity over discrete surrounds any day.

To this date, I blame Dolby for taking us a step backwards in audio quality.

I have never heard any of the lossy formats from LD - I never had the proper LD player or the special piece of equipment (modulator?) that is needed. However, without a doubt to my ears, the LD LPCM sounds better than DVD DD 5.1. But of course with matrixed surrounds instead of discrete. But I will take fidelity over discrete surrounds any day.

To this date, I blame Dolby for taking us a step backwards in audio quality.

DTS on LD was encoded just like CD, all one needed is the regular SPDIF digital connection to a DTS decoder[all current receiver and pre/pros] to hear it in it's full glory.

As for your blame of Dolby, how about fidelity to the original mix, does that count? It's not just the surrounds, but it's the center, and the LFE as well. While the center and surrounds been matrixed into the L-R, the LFE is simply removed if the mix had it, not all did.Many in the industry especially mixers were very happy to hear their work to be finally presented on a home format as they were intended,{commercial cinemas used lossy DD and DTS as well} and not butchered down into 2 ch be it analog (VHS) or digital (LD). So no I don't think that the majority especially in the industry would share your opinion this, but it's all good.

DTS on LD was encoded just like CD, all one needed is the regular SPDIF digital connection to a DTS decoder[all current receiver and pre/pros] to hear it in it's full glory.

I just checked on the back of my LD player. What spdif output? All I see is the left and right RCA audio outs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thehun

As for your blame of Dolby, how about fidelity to the original mix, does that count? It's not just the surrounds, but it's the center, and the LFE as well. While the center and surrounds been matrixed into the L-R, the LFE is simply removed if the mix had it, not all did.Many in the industry especially mixers were very happy to hear their work to be finally presented on a home format as they were intended,{commercial cinemas used lossy DD and DTS as well} and not butchered down into 2 ch be it analog (VHS) or digital (LD). So no I don't think that the majority especially in the industry would share your opinion this, but it's all good.

That was my point. DVD DD 5.1 offers the correct number of channels, but with reduced fidelity.

I am curious now, perhaps it is just ears. Does anyone here actually thinks that DVD DD 5.1 offers better fidelity than LD LPCM? For me, it doesn't, not even close.

I just checked on the back of my LD player. What spdif output? All I see is the left and right RCA audio outs.

SPDIF = Sony Philips digital interface, the optical digital out that is widely available on most CD/DVD and many mid to high end LD players. Sounds like you don't have that on yours.

Quote:

That was my point. DVD DD 5.1 offers the correct number of channels, but with reduced fidelity.

You also compare two different mixes, having said that DD or DTS[lossy] can't rival with PCM as far as "fidelity" there is no question, but to me the 2ch downmix, is just too much of a compromise for me to ultimately prefer it to the correct mix even if it is lossy.

The theatrical one. According to Mi Casa, it was about 5-6 db. I remember there was a lot of complaints on this forum and many others at the time, regarding how this title was "overcooked". Well they were right.

I always thought the sound mix from ANY of the Indiana Jones (Original)Trilogy was superior to the DVD counterparts. Obviously, the video (on the DVD's) was superior. Having said that, it was a thrill watching them on LD, before the DVD's were available. They still looked pretty awesome on my old Zenith CRT projector. WOW, the blacks were pretty impressive on that 'cheap' rig!

The major difference between DVD & LD sound is that the LD has better audio when it comes to Music, but the dialogue is not as clear as it would be on DVD. Laserdisc audio is very Bassy! Regular DD is not that bad! Laserdiscs sound better with music period!

There were different mixes used. After further investigation a lot of the dynamics lost on DVD were to due with DialNorm and it's misuse with movies. I'm not going to argue the point anymore but I think it has been pointed out now that there were 'differences' between mixes, we can argue that DVD is more accurate or LD had better dynamics. I would like to point out that there were differences in the actual mixes, something The Hun said didn't exist.

I have been reading how Laserdisc releases are much better sound quality than the equivalent DVD releases. ( or so some say ) People say DVD has more compression while the Laserdisc opens up the soundstage and sounds so much better.

Question i have is are Blu Ray discs with their lossless soundtracks now a step above what Laserdisc offered.....Would you say that even the 640kb/s or 1.5mbp/s lossy tracks are better than Laserdiscs sound ?

I know that you have to compare on a movie basis and you can't just say one sounds better than the other but i was wondering if the owners of Laserdiscs are now happy with the sound they get from Blu Ray ?

Of course it's also all in the mix and Laserdisc used to offer PCM 2 chanel soundtracks which you could decode into Pro Logic....Should Blu Ray offer the original 2 channel soundtrack in PCM form for older films as well as a remix ( i think so )

I have to say that I am now back into the lasedisc game. I have over 600 discs.

Laserdisc Dolby Digital or PCM is usually better IMO that that of most DVDs. There just seems to be something better about the LDs.

I have not had an LD player in years since I sold my Pioneer Elite CLD-79 and Lexicon LDD-1. Until now! I have contacted a forum member, and buying a Pioneer Elite CLD-97 from him!!! Still have all of my Ld's, and can't wait to compare Saving Private Ryan on BD vs. My Japanese LD! The only clear cut winner will be me!

What do you mean by "close"? Blu-rays that have lossless sound (i.e., the vast majority) have tracks (including PCM) that either meet or exceed the fidelity of LD, and even those with Dolby Digital or DTS tracks use higher bitrates.

"When I get sad I just stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story."--Barney Stinson, How I Met Your Mother

I was doing a comparison of the Uncompressed PCM LD track & the DD 2.0 DVD track yesterday for the 1991 Michael J Fox movie The Hard Way, & as usual, the PCM track was louder, WAY louder, while the DVD version was WAY too quiet, almost like it was on night mode even when you turned the volume all the way up. But the mixes were exactly the same, & everything stayed intact on the DD 2.0 version, fidelity intact, except that the damn volume was way too low.

Whichever moron at Dolby Labs decided that all AC3 encodings should be normalized & set to the lowest volume possible without giving the end user any control over it should be ashamed.

When developing Dolby Digital, they should have made it so that each AC3 file is encoded at the same volume as it's PCM master, and then giving the end user the opportunity to add DRC/night mode on the decoding end.

We should have the ability to turn off all settings that were added when the file was compressed & have it play at the master tracks volume.

Some neutral info on LD vs Bluray from a person who has a lot to do with the topic. I have discussed all of the following with both sound engineers and computer scientists. And I have, of course, put in a lot of my own experience.

The first important fact is, that until the early 90s movies were recorded in stereo (or mono before that). Then, in the early 90s, Dolby Surround came up. When it comes to sound engineering this was a significant seizure.
Laserdiscs were developed in the mid to late 70s (depending on how you count). Back then they were called Laservision-Discs and had but a single analogue-stereo-track on them. In the mid-80s they got an additional digital stereo track and were renamed Laserdisc.
Both tracks were compression-free. And as the Laserdisc-system was a rather prestigious enterprise the Laserdisc Audio-Masters were often, though not always, direct copies of the original film masters (or at least of copies of them).
And: While the master-tapes of a film are likely to deteriorate over time, the Laserdiscs data-layer is well protected by approx 2mm of a protective plastic-layer. This is as close as a time capsule for the sound as it gets.
So, when it comes to films of the stereo-era the Laserdiscs of those films have pretty much the best sound that anyone can hear them in at this point in time.

Three things stand in the way of getting a similar quality today. The first one is, as stated, deterioration of the originals. Today those originals would have to be remastered first. Remastering always means to change the original because you have to more or less estimate what data has been lost and then creatively re-add it. That process has to be overseen by an experienced audio-engineer. Those cost money - which most releases of older films aren't allowed to do, except they are classic blockbusters like Star Wars (where the companies have to uphold a certain reputation).
So usually some doofus intern, or a former employee who was fired and then rehired as an intern to save money will hushhush the whole procedure and then upscale it into - the second problem - a 7.1 Surround soundtrack that is then - problem three - mildly compressed because even on a Bluray there's no space for 8 uncompressed audio channels.
So, while the Bluray is, theoratically, capable of containing more data, and thus higher quality Audio than LD, older films are prohibited to have that quality on BR due to the passing of time, money-issues, carelessness, marketing strategy and sheer physics - because: Though the compression of the Bluray is called loss-free there simply is no such thing as a loss-free audio-compression. There is a compression that is so relatively loss-free that you won't hear the difference on your average stereo. But - trust me - on a Studio-Monitor it's like comparing an oil-painting with its course, 3-dimensional surface to a very high-resolving carefully lit photo of that same painting. It may fool you for a certain time but it stays oddly artificial and flat.
Fine colourings get lost first during compression. Espacially voices that can have an almost corporeal presence on Laserdisc loose a lot of their shape and physical weight.
In an action movie that doesn't really matter. But listen to a monologue like Brando's Horror-Speach form Apocalypse Now - and it's worlds apart. On LD you get to feel an actual physical imprint of the actors charisma.

However all that counts for older movies. The picture changes when it comes to films of the surround-era.
Here you simply can't give definitive statements anymore. Laserdisc wasn't made for Surround. It simply had no space on it left for additional tracks. Thus the implentation of it on LD is, by todays (BR-)standard, rather poor. The Dolby data-rate on LD is even smaller than it's DVD-counterpart. The later DTS LDs have about twice the bandwidth of DVD but still a lot less than BR. But LD still had it's uncompressed Streo-tracks.
So for films from the 90s it really depends: Was the Film made with alternate Surround and Stereo Versions (Dolby wasnt very common in theatres then)? Was there a real stereo version on the disc plus some additional effects when you had the equipment or did you miss something when you had no Surround? Etc.
Generally the LDs from the 90s still kick the DVDs butt. But not necessarily the BRs, which was designed for maximum Surround-performance. Unimportant re-releases of not-so-succesful movies will still sound better on LD due to careless mastering on BR (many BRs even contain a DVD soundtrack that has merely been decompressed and then put on the BR, unaltered).
Also it's a matter of taste. LDs usually sound more "mature", balanced, lucid, while BR cleary puts an emphasis on spectacular effects like lighnings, explosions or objects audibly moving from one side of the room to the next.
Personally, when watching a BR I sometimes feel treatd like a child that has to be entertained constantly with new, exciting sensations every couple of minutes.
Which makes sense for some movies, like Independence Day, where I absolutely prefer the BR . - But I'm definitely NEVER gonna buy a Dolby-True-HD-7.1-Master-Version of Breakfast at Tiffanys...

There were different mixes used. After further investigation a lot of the dynamics lost on DVD were to due with DialNorm and it's misuse with movies. I'm not going to argue the point anymore but I think it has been pointed out now that there were 'differences' between mixes, we can argue that DVD is more accurate or LD had better dynamics. I would like to point out that there were differences in the actual mixes, something The Hun said didn't exist.

I'm a little late for this, but in any case I've never said that different mixes were never used, what I said is they were not a policy to use to accommodate a different market that represented the typical DVD consumer vs the LD one. Nice try though.

I was doing a comparison of the Uncompressed PCM LD track & the DD 2.0 DVD track yesterday for the 1991 Michael J Fox movie The Hard Way, & as usual, the PCM track was louder, WAY louder, while the DVD version was WAY too quiet, almost like it was on night mode even when you turned the volume all the way up. But the mixes were exactly the same, & everything stayed intact on the DD 2.0 version, fidelity intact, except that the damn volume was way too low.

Whichever moron at Dolby Labs decided that all AC3 encodings should be normalized & set to the lowest volume possible without giving the end user any control over it should be ashamed.

When developing Dolby Digital, they should have made it so that each AC3 file is encoded at the same volume as it's PCM master, and then giving the end user the opportunity to add DRC/night mode on the decoding end.

We should have the ability to turn off all settings that were added when the file was compressed & have it play at the master tracks volume.

In the early days dialnorm could be switched off on a few Denon receivers, however the effect of dialnorm can easily be negated with the MV knob. As for the DRC the track carries the metadata for values, but not to activate the compression it self, that is left to the user indeed. Of course there are wrong encodes on some titles like Iron Man on BD that indeed activate the DRC and user actually have to set it off manually during playback.